Lincoln ships former slaves to africa?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Note that this is not a racial statement, nor should it be interpreted as a belief that I hold. That being said, Lincoln had talked about a back to Africa movement as part of emancipation, so what if he survives and actually does it? Obviously it would be impossible to ship every former slave to Africa, but what if the government made a concerted effort to implement Lincoln's policy? What does it do to the US and how does it effect Africa, Liberia, and reconstruction?
 
I think that in many ways Liberia/colonization was a red herring, a way for discreet antislavery types to moderate their often unpopular stance. "Hell no, I'm no abolitionist - in fact, I want to ship 'em all to Liberia!" sounded better to the typical 1840s or 50s American voter than "It is wrong to enslave black people".

As far as I know there was never any concrete, seriously considered plan for the kind of large-scale emigration that Lincoln and the like talked about. Nor could there have been - the US simply did not have the money, ships, sailors, or resources to round up millions of people and unload them thousands of miles away. Liberia remained a small project.

I know that Central America was also floated as a possible dumping ground for American blacks. This would mitigate the distance problem, but not the rounding-em-up problem. Agree that the US would have trouble rounding up illegal immigrants today, iof such a policy were to be implemented? Try that with a much larger sector of the population, with 19th century technology. And then the legal battles - what if someone claimed he was always a free black, but the govt believed him a recently emancipated slave? People of mixed ancestry? No, colonization was a crackpot scheme and everyone is lucky that nobody ever pursued it in earnest beyond a few philanthropists.
 
I think that in many ways Liberia/colonization was a red herring, a way for discreet antislavery types to moderate their often unpopular stance. "Hell no, I'm no abolitionist - in fact, I want to ship 'em all to Liberia!" sounded better to the typical 1840s or 50s American voter than "It is wrong to enslave black people".
Or "Sure, I'm an abolitionist, but Hell, no, I don't want any of THOSE people in my town/state/..."
 
I can't see it happening; Lincoln dropped his interest pretty quickly when it became clear that free blacks had no interest in leaving.

A better POD for this sort of thing is Virginia near the turn of the 18th Century; delay the invention of the cotton gin for a few years and colonization, which was being proposed tentatively, might get off the ground.
 
Delay the cotton gin and the whole slavery issue may moot. In the late 1700's the abolitionist movement was quite advanced. In fact many of the most prominent abolitionists were southerners. It wasn't until the south became economically chained to cotton that many of the tenets of slavery evolved. It is very possible that slavery would have been slowly repealed or moderated.
 
I think that in many ways Liberia/colonization was a red herring, a way for discreet antislavery types to moderate their often unpopular stance. "Hell no, I'm no abolitionist - in fact, I want to ship 'em all to Liberia!" sounded better to the typical 1840s or 50s American voter than "It is wrong to enslave black people".

As far as I know there was never any concrete, seriously considered plan for the kind of large-scale emigration that Lincoln and the like talked about. Nor could there have been - the US simply did not have the money, ships, sailors, or resources to round up millions of people and unload them thousands of miles away. Liberia remained a small project.

I know that Central America was also floated as a possible dumping ground for American blacks. This would mitigate the distance problem, but not the rounding-em-up problem. Agree that the US would have trouble rounding up illegal immigrants today, iof such a policy were to be implemented? Try that with a much larger sector of the population, with 19th century technology. And then the legal battles - what if someone claimed he was always a free black, but the govt believed him a recently emancipated slave? People of mixed ancestry? No, colonization was a crackpot scheme and everyone is lucky that nobody ever pursued it in earnest beyond a few philanthropists.

Agreed, he knew damn well the government didn't have the ships, sailors or money. It was an idea to buy time, no more.
 
There is also the reason that slavery started in the first place -- Lack of Laborers.
Try rounding up and deporting 60% of the Labor Supply, and see what happens to the Economy.
 
Actually kicking around a TL idea that might incorporate something like this as a "butterfly" (won't be the main gist of the TL).

Most of the serious Liberia movement was from Virginia Planters, i.e. Madison, Monroe, etc. Jefferson was mixed on the idea.

If you butterfly Gabriel's Rebellion perhaps you see an 1830s manumission policy in VA, perhaps passed only by promise of a greater Colonization effort. Still, there's no way logistically to ship "everyone" back, as those above have noted, but you could see some early efforts at it or at least token "appease the people" motions which could conceivably lead to a significantly larger African American population in Liberia. This creates interesting butterflies for West Africa, particularly if we see an influx of skilled tradesmen (VA slaves were very often trained in woodworking, carpentry, metallurgy, or even rifle-making!), literate or semi-literate "house slaves" and perhaps educated freemen as an admin base, and former revolutionary and 1812 soldiers.
 
What if the U.S. had not screwed over Haiti time and time again and instead stabilized and supported it to use as a dumping ground for freemen?
 
or what about out west somewhere ala For Want of a Nail? if i remember right it was in otl Iowa area, Vandalia i think it was called and it was voluntary rather than forced.
 
What if the U.S. had not screwed over Haiti time and time again and instead stabilized and supported it to use as a dumping ground for freemen?
President Jefferson was very opposed to Haiti, and attempted to get all Haitian Ships Banned from US Ports, He continued his anti Haitian crusade after leaving the White House and IIRC got Haitian Ships banned from Virginia.
the Anti Haitian Fellings lasted till the ACW with the US finally recognizing Haiti in 1865.
I think some kind of Annexation of Santo Domingo would be easier to Sell to Congress and the Media.
 
Perhaps if Lincoln only deported the slaves born in Africa that would be best. Since obviously they were brought here against their will.
 
President Jefferson was very opposed to Haiti, and attempted to get all Haitian Ships Banned from US Ports, He continued his anti Haitian crusade after leaving the White House and IIRC got Haitian Ships banned from Virginia.
the Anti Haitian Fellings lasted till the ACW with the US finally recognizing Haiti in 1865.
I think some kind of Annexation of Santo Domingo would be easier to Sell to Congress and the Media.

Hmmm, I haven't read March of Folly in a couple of years, but I think the American fear of 'Black Napolean' dictatorships is not only strong enough to stop a Western hemisphere dumping ground policy, but may eventually have sabotaged any large scale Liberian re-settlement effort put forward as government policy by Lincoln or others.

It doesn't matter that Liberia is across the Atlantic, I think post-ACW Americans would have been very wary of using the treasury to pay for a possible anti-democratic black regime beyond whatever subsidies Monrovia got OTL from Washington.
 
or what about out west somewhere ala For Want of a Nail? if i remember right it was in otl Iowa area, Vandalia i think it was called and it was voluntary rather than forced.

That's slightly more plausible than Liberia (or already-overcrowded Haiti). As the white frontier moved westward, however, I'll bet those black settlers would have felt a lot of pressure to surrender their land to whites.

This would add an interesting, if not very pleasant, dynamic to the Great Plains conflicts. A "black reservation" in the west would also have influenced 1850s events such as Dred Scott and the Kansas-Nebraska Act - it would establish a strong precedent for the existence of a majority free black territory.

In Africa, the most that can happen is what Geekhis described: a slightly larger Liberia effort. More emigrants to W. Africa, expanding the American expat elite there.
 
Emancipation proclamation

Hey guys, sorry I've been away from here for so long...

say, aren't you guys forgetting a little something called the Emancipation Proclamation ? When I researched Lincoln's reasons for liberating the slaves back in American Hist at uni for my paper in 97, 1 key reason why he became a genuine supporter of the rights of blacks as citizens of the US was that, after seeing em take up arms for the cause of the Union from Jan 1863, there was NO way he could countenance the implementation of his previous thoughts involving shipping em all back to Africa...
 
Doug Hoff's ACW timeline had the North using the Indian Territory/Oklahoma as a resettlement land for freemen after the South won the Civil War. The rationale was that if they had learned to fight, it was best to put them at a place where they would fight Injuns, not white men.
 
Top